Stafford & Rural Homes (202110240)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110240

Stafford & Rural Homes

25 August 2022

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the:
1. resident’s reports of the outstanding repairs required to the property
2. resident’s request to be transferred.
3. the related complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is managed by a housing association
The property is described as a three-bedroom semi- detached house.
The resident has informed us that she has medical conditions such as fibromyalgia, hyperhidrosis and that herself and her partner have mental health conditions.
The tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to keep the structure, exterior and internal areas of the resident’s home in repair. This includes the roof, window sills, fences and gates where provided by the landlord. The landlord is responsible for the repair of internal areas such as door and frames, floors and ceilings. However, it is not responsible for the painting or decoration of the property.
The repairs policy sets out that emergency repairs will be dealt with within four hours and that non-triage repairs will be prioritised in accordance with its service standards. It defines major repairs are those that require significant work that cannot be completed under its non-emergency repair time scales and that these will be completed within 60 days of inspection
In addition, the repairs policy states that repairs to fencing will be dealt with in accordance with the tenancy agreement. These works will be limited to addressing any health and safety risks.
The landlord’s letting policy effective to March 2021 sets out that 75% of its properties are offered to the local authority under its nomination agreement and it will allocate the remaining properties to its residents. The letting policy outlines the priorities it has set for its residents who wish to transfer and that the rehousing application becomes active on the list from the date the resident requests to move.
The landlord’s letting policy from April 2021 sets out the four rehousing priority bands – Band A to Band D. It advises that it will assess resident’s medical needs under three categories – urgent, high or medium and explains eligibility for a property transfer.
The landlord’s complaint procedure in place that the complaint was made had an informal stage where complaints will be dealt with within one working day. The complaint time scale will be agreed with the resident for those complaints dealt with at the first stage. A complaints panel will manage the complaints dealt with at its final stage.
The complaints procedure sets out the factors it considers when assessing compensation awards.

Scope of events

The resident has asserted that the condition of the property is poor and it is not disputed that the resident has been making repair reports to the landlord. The resident complained to the landlord in 2021 about various repairs required to the property regarding water penetration, dampness, decoration to six ceilings and a crack to the bay window in the front room. The resident has advised this service that the landlord has completed repairs to remedy the dampness and the crack to the bay window in the main front room and her partner completed repairs to the six ceiling. However, the other repairs such as the water penetration to the front bedroom and repairs to the door frames remain outstanding.
The resident has provided a medical letter regarding her health conditions. She has also advised that her partner and children have mental health conditions and that they have all been affected by their living conditions. Whilst the resident had advised of the adverse impact to her and her family’s health, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing as this would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts.

Summary of events

The resident has reported that she was experiencing water penetration into the front bedroom in September 2020. The landlord raised a works order on 10 September 2020 to inspect the roof and the works order to check the pitched roof/gutter was completed on 24 September 2020.
It is noted in the repair records on 14 January 2021 that follow on works were required to the roof following the inspection carried out on 8 September 2020. On 4 February 2021, the landlord’s internal records note that scaffolding was required to inspect the roof but this involved placing the scaffold on land belonging to a private occupier who lived adjacent to the resident, who will be referred to as Neighbour A within the report.
The landlord’s records note on 12 March 2021 that the resident had requested a transfer. She described the property as old, damp and that the property was overcrowded. It is noted that the landlord needed to contact the resident to advise that she needed to obtain a supporting letter from her GP regarding her transfer request.
The resident complained to the landlord on 12 March 2021. The key issues raised were that:
1. she had been living in overcrowded accommodation for at least seven to eight years
2. she had medical conditions and the current living situation was affecting her physical and mental health
3. the property was not suitable as it was old and it required significant repairs to bring it up to a suitable standard
4. the front bedroom joining wall had an unresolved crack and it was damp which was affecting her children who slept in that room
5. the door frames were old and the hinges kept coming out of place
6. the condition of the hallway walls was awful. The resident advised that an operative had burst a water bubble with his key, which had affected the hallway light switch.
It is noted on the same day (12 March 2021) in the landlord’s records that the resident made a rehousing bid on two properties.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 23 March 2021. Later that day, the landlord requested more information regarding the defect to the door frames and hinges.
The resident sent the landlord the requested information on 24 March 2021. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the pictures that same day.
The landlord internal records record on 24 March 2021:
1. That the landlord discussed contacting Neighbour A who lived adjacent to the resident’s property to request permission to scaffold their property in order for the landlord to assess the condition of the resident’s roof.
2. The housing options referral notes that the resident is overcrowded, requires an extra bedroom and that supporting information would be provided.
The landlord contacted the resident on 26 March 2021 to advise that the complaint investigation was under way.
On 29 March 2021, the landlord confirmed to the resident that a surveyor’s visit to the resident’s property would take place on 2 April 2021. It also advised that the overcrowding of the property was being looked into.
The resident supplied a medical letter on 29 March 2021 to the landlord. The letter advised that the resident and her partner have mental health conditions, that there may be damp in the property and that two children suffer from asthma.
It is noted in the landlord’s records that it was visiting the resident’s property on 31 March 2021 to inspect the crack in the ceiling and to assess the damp and mould. Following the visit, a full report would be completed and it would assess any compensation due once it had concluded its investigations.
The landlord’s records show that on 8 April 2021, that Neighbour A proposed three options for her agreement to allow the scaffolding to be put up on her land: she requested that the landlord either replace the hedge at the rear of the garden boundary on the right-hand side with a secure fence, cut the boundary hedge or pay for the brown bin costs that the local authority charge to empty the bin. The neighbour explained that as a consequence of the boundary hedge becoming overgrown, it encroached on her property and she had to pay the cost that the local authority charge to empty the bin used to dispose of the hedge cuttings.
The resident communicated with the landlord on 9 April 2021 regarding the works required to the boundary fence to her property. Following the conversation, the resident provided pictures of the rear boundary to the property. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the pictures and the resident’s request that the landlord replace the fence at the bottom of the garden as well as the fencing on the left-hand side.
On 12 March 2021, the landlord raised a works order to remedy a 1cm wide crack in the ceiling from one corner to another in the front room.
The surveyor reported on 13 April 2021 that the following repairs were required:
1. patch repair to kitchen ceiling – remove snagging section
2. instruct contractor to establish point of water ingress to first bedroom. Once identified, address the cause of the water ingress
3. loft space to be inspected – if contractor identifies that that works are required to the roofing felt, the resident may be required to clear the loft space
4. no action to be taken regarding the pointing to the property – aesthetics only
5. no action to be taken regarding the cracking around the door frames
6. remove all plaster to ceiling in front room and replaster to remedy crack to the bay window
The surveyor noted that he did not believe that the crack to the bay window in the front room was structural as movement had not occurred for a long time. Furthermore, the crack had only affected the bay window.
The surveyor advised that he had informed the resident that they would be contacted before the appointments were raised and that the resident had the option to accept or refuse the repairs that were required.
It is also noted in the landlord’s records on 13 April 2021 that it considered that:
1. There was a dividing boundary between the two properties.
2. As Neighbour A had agreed to allow access for the scaffolding to be placed on her land, the boundary hedge could be replaced with a fence.
3. The resident had also requested that the boundary hedge be replaced with a fence and had also requested that the landlord replace the fence at the rear of the garden.
4. The resident had advised that at the rear of her garden, there was dumped rubbish which on occasion slid into her garden from properties that joined her property which she believed contained asbestos.
The landlord’s records show that on 14 April 2021 that:
1. It checked whether the replacement of the rear fence could be dealt with under its planned programme
2. It decided that it could not replace the rear fence to the resident’s property as fencing is the resident’s responsibility under the tenancy agreement.
3. It decided that it would arrange for an asbestos survey to be carried out of the rear garden and arrange for the asbestos removal if required.
4. It discussed the cause of the crack to the front bedroom wall. It stated that while the cause of the crack remained unknown, the location of the crack was not taking any load from the main structure.
The landlord informed the resident on 15 April 2021 that work would commence on 23 April 2021 to remove the asbestos from the rear garden. On the same day, its internal records note that its surveyor agreed to inspect the rear garden when he attends to measure for the removal of the hedge and installation of the fence. The surveyor also agreed to observe how many items were dumped in the rear garden as the resident’s garden does not border a footpath and the garden is backed by other gardens.
The landlord records note on 16 April 2021 regarding the rear garden that:
1. The property is landlocked and there is no public access to the area and the properties have erected fences away from their actual boundaries creating a “no man’s land”.
2. The asbestos contractor advised that it would carry out work in two phases. The first phase would remove the loose asbestos in the garden and when the fencing schedule had been agreed, it would commence with phase two to remove the remaining asbestos.
The landlord’s records show that on 19 April 2021 the resident’s rehousing banding was changed to Band C. In addition, it raised works orders to make good the damaged ceiling plaster board to the kitchen, to remedy the section of the kitchen ceiling that had snagged and to make good defective ceiling plaster in the living room.
The landlord informed the resident on 20 April 2021 of the change to her rehousing status and that she had moved into a higher priority band. It requested that the resident confirm that she wanted to bid weekly and wanted to be considered for rehousing.
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 April 2021 to advise that there was only one four-bedroom property available for her to make a bid on. In response, the landlord advised that the rehousing list changes on a weekly basis and that she should bid more regularly to increase her chances of receiving an offer.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 22 April 2021. The key findings following its inspection of the property on 31 March 2021 and an inspection of the garden on 15 April 2021 were:
1. It had arranged for the ceiling in the front bedroom bay window to be filled and replastered on 21 May 2021.
2. The resident was responsible for the repair to the door frames and door hinges.
3. The resident had been moved to a higher priority rehousing band. It had a shortage of housing which limited the amount and size of properties available to its residents.
4. It would plaster part of the ceiling kitchen on 21 May 2021 as not all of the kitchen ceiling required repair.
5. That Neighbour A had agreed that scaffolding could be erected over their side of the property. This would enable it to carry out an inspection of the roof valley and to address the water ingress to the bedroom.
6. he inspection of the garden had found that the fencing to the right side of the garden was in good condition.
7. It considered that the pointing to the property was satisfactory.
8. The landlord made a compensation award to replace the hedge to the right-hand side of the garden with fencing and that the resident had been awarded a higher priority band.
In addition, the landlord advised that its contractors had to take time off work to self-isolate, or when requested by the NHS test and trace as a consequence of the Covid 19 pandemic and apologised for any delay experienced by the resident.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint on 23 April 2021 advising she was unhappy with the compensation offered by the landlord. The resident provided further clarification advising that:
1. The landlord had misled her about the compensation offer as it had originally informed her that the replacement of the hedge with a fence would be treated as a gesture of good will.
2. The installation of the fence would cost the landlord £1757.12.
3. She disputed the reason for the move to the higher rehousing band. She advised that this resulted from the letter provided from her GP supporting her need to move and as a result of the complaint investigation.
4. The landlord had previously carried out a poor roof repair to the front bedroom, which had caused more problems for the family
5. The door frames to the property were old and poorly repaired.
6. Her preferred outcome was for the landlord to review its offer of compensation.
It is recorded in the landlord’s records that the resident made six rehousing bids on 23 April 2021.
The landlord acknowledged the final stage complaint on 26 April 2021. It advised that it would respond within 20 working days.
The landlord’s records show that on 7 May 2021 the asbestos removal was completed.
The Council emailed the resident following its conversation earlier that day with the resident. It requested further information regarding her eligibility for the waiting list and requested that she complete the medical form sent by the landlord as the GP letter she had provided was not sufficient for increase her priority for rehousing.
The landlord contacted the resident on 18 May 2021 to request an extension for its complaint response and that it intended to respond to the complaint on 7 June 2021.
The resident contacted the landlord on 20 May 2021. The resident advised that:
1. The landlord needed to first scaffold the front bedroom in order to ascertain the cause of the water leak. After the leak was rectified, then it should arrange for the bedroom to be plastered.
2. The property was overcrowded.
3. That she considered she was entitled to compensation of £5000 for the emotional stress that she experienced. She explained that as the installation of the fence cost around £1700, the landlord could pay her the money instead
4. The installation of the fence was a good will gesture offered to the neighbour for her agreement to scaffold the front of the adjacent property.
The resident supplied the requested verification information to the Council on 24 May 2021 for her housing application.
The landlord responded at the final stage of the complaints procedure on 7 June 2021. The key findings were that:
1. The repairs to the kitchen ceiling had been completed.
2. It considered that the door frames did not need repair.
3. There was a functional existing fence on either side of the property. Therefore, it had agreed to remove the hedge and install fencing to the area where the hedge would be removed. It apologised for the confusion regarding its decision regarding the fencing.
4. It informed the resident that it could not offer the cost of the replacement fencing of £1757.12 to her as compensation as that was the cost of replacing the fence to the property.
5. It advised that it understood that the resident had declined its offer to install the fence to the left-hand side of the garden and that it had been offered as a good will gesture to the resident.
6. The resident had been placed in rehousing Band C on 19 April 2021. On 30 April 2021, its lettings policy had been updated and the resident had been placed in Band B for overcrowding from 4 June 2021.
7. It had arranged to visit the resident on 10 June 2021 regarding the outstanding repairs to the front bedroom, to inspect the six ceilings, the pointing and the areas that the resident advised requiring plastering.
8. The landlord offered compensation of £150. This was broken down as: poor communication £50, delay in resolving repairs £50, and inconvenience £50.
The resident emailed the landlord on 24 June 2021 to dispute the information in its complaint response. The resident expressed that:
1. The repairs to the kitchen ceiling had not been completed.
2. The door frames were not safe as the living room door had nearly fallen on her and the door had split from its bottom hinge.
3. The landlord had backtracked regarding its offer with regard to the fence- initially it had said that it would install the fence as a gesture of good will and now it had advised that its offer to replace the fence was offered as compensation.
4. She was willing to accept the first offer made by the landlord in relation to the fence – fencing to be installed along the left boundary from where the hedge starts.
5. She was unwilling to accept the installation of the fence as compensation for her complaint.
6. Over the years the condition of the front bedroom had deteriorated
7. She rejected the compensation offer of £150.
After the complaint had exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. The landlord issued a works order on 2 July 2021 to:
1. Replace living room door to hallway and reposition the hinges on door frames.
2. Strip back/ hack off wall plaster to front wall in front bedroom and return wall to the chimney breast.
3. Install new thermal plasterboard to chimney breast in front bedroom and apply skim finish.
It is noted that the resident refused access on 6 July 2021 for the works to be carried out advising that the landlord needed to resolve the roof leak to the front bedroom before it carried out plastering works to that room.
The landlord’s records show that:
1. It serviced a party wall notice on Neighbour A on 23 July 2021.
2. Neighbour A requested that the landlord agree to maintain the boundary hedge in perpetuity for her agreement to use her land to erect the scaffolding.
3. The landlord decided that it could not agree to Neighbour A’s request as it could not confirm that it would always have access to the property and considered gifting the fence as a more practical option.
4. It would inform the resident that its offer to replace the section of the hedge with a fence remains available and that the resident would be responsible for the future maintenance of the fence.
The resident escalated her complaint to this Service on 17 August 2021, she remained dissatisfied with the repairs carried out by the landlord to the property. She advised that her preferred outcome was for the landlord to rehouse her to suitable property and to be compensated for the stress and inconvenience she had experienced.
The landlord has informed this Service, that as it had not received permission to scaffold the adjacent property, its major works team cleared the hopper head to the valley roof and removed the debris contained within it on 21 April 2022.
On 27 May 2022, the landlord completed the plastering work to the front bedroom.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role includes an assessment of whether the landlord has followed its own policies and procedures and acted appropriately. The assessment will consider the landlord’s response to the reports that it received and to the formal complaint and consider whether its response was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. The report will not be addressing each specific issue or incident. The Ombudsman will not only consider the landlord’s response to the substantive issue, but also the actions it took within its complaints process.
It is clear from the resident’s submissions that she had been distressed regarding the repairs required to her property. The resident’s feelings are acknowledged, and it is recognised that dealing with such situations would no doubt have been difficult for the resident and her family.

resident’s reports of the repairs required to the property

The landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure of the property. Therefore, it was required to investigate the repair reports it received and take the appropriate steps to resolve the issues it identified.
Looking at the available information, the resident informed the landlord of repairs required to the property in March 2021. The landlord took the appropriate action in arranging for the property to be inspected in April 2021 and diagnosed the repairs that were required to the property.
The resident complained that the door frames to the internal doors required replacement. The landlord inspected the resident’s property in April 2021 and initially informed the resident that it considered that the repair to the door frames was the tenants responsibility to resolve. However, that advice was not in accordance with the terms within its tenancy agreement which advises that it is responsible for the repair to the door frame. The landlord in its final complaint response was resolution focused when it agreed to carry out a further inspection to the internal doors and carried out a repair to the living room door in June 2021 in accordance with its obligations.
Following the landlord’s inspection of the property in April 2021, it assessed that work was required to the kitchen ceiling to remedy the section of the ceiling that had snagged and took the appropriate action to plaster that section of the kitchen ceiling on 21 May 2021.
The resident reported that she was experiencing water penetration into the first bedroom in September 2020. The resident experienced an unacceptable delay in obtaining a resolution to the roof leak. The landlord assessed that scaffolding to the property was required in February 2021, this required access to Neighbour A’s property. There was a three-month delay before the landlord contacted Neighbour A in April 2021 which was not reasonable as it contributed to the length of time already experienced by the resident.
The landlord communicated with the Neighbour A in April 2021 regarding the use of her land, however agreement could not be reached as she had proposed that the landlord accept responsibility in perpetuity for the maintenance of the replacement fence. The landlord considered the proposal and rejected it. This was a reasonable response as the proposal from Neighbour A would make the landlord liable for future costs for an asset that it would not usually be responsible for and could not guarantee that it could maintain.
There was a further unacceptable delay in the landlord taking action as it did not serve the party wall agreement on Neighbour A until July 2021. This was at least five months after it had initially assessed that it would need access to the Neighbour A’s property. The available information does not explain why it did not serve the party wall notice when it first started communication with Neighbour A regarding the use of her land
The repairs to the roof were completed by the landlord in April 2022. This was an unacceptable delay as it took over twelve months for the landlord to resolve the cause of the water penetration into the front bedroom which was not in accordance with its repairing obligations which advises that major repairs will be resolved within 60 days.
Once the roof repairs were completed, the works to remedy the crack to the front bedroom were completed on 27 May 2021. The landlord’s assessment of the crack was that it was not structural and it was entitled to relied on the professional opinion that it had received from its surveyor. However, whilst the landlord appropriately recognised that it was required to repair the crack to the window under its repairing obligations, its surveyor also advised the resident that she did not have to agree to the repairs. This was a short coming as the advice was not in accordance with the resident’s tenancy agreement or its repairing obligations to keep the structure of the property in repair.
Looking at the overall compensation award of £150 made by the landlord in its final complaint response this did not adequately reflect the unacceptable delay experience by the resident in getting the roof repairs resolved and the inconvenience that she had experienced.

resident’s request to be transferred

Looking at the available information, the resident requested a transfer from the landlord advising that she was overcrowded and was unhappy with the condition of the property. The landlord advised the resident that it required supporting information to support her application and it accepted that the resident was overcrowded in her current property.
The landlord assessed the resident’s rehousing application and she was awarded a Band C. The landlord lettings policy changed in April 2021 and the resident’s rehousing application was appropriately reassessed in accordance with this. The resident’s rehousing priority was changed to a Band B. This reflected the resident’s need to move urgently as the landlord had evidence of overcrowding.
The landlord in its initial complaint response informed the resident that as redress for her complaint, she had been offered a higher rehousing priority. The resident disputed this advising that her rehousing priority was based on the number of persons resident in her household and the assessment of her health and her family. The landlord in its final complaint response clarified that the resident’s rehousing priority was based on its new lettings criteria and offered an award of compensation of £50 for its communication failures. It was important for the landlord to clarify its position on this matter, confirming that it had assessed her housing need in accordance with its lettings policy and that it had not acted outside of this when assessing her housing need.

The related complaint

The complaint procedure in place at the time of the complaint did not provide time frames for the resolution of the complaint. However, the landlord is expected to respond to the complaint in a reasonable timeframe and in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 12 March 2021 and the landlord provided its complaint response on 22 April 2021. Therefore, the landlord took around 26 days to respond to a complaint which is an unreasonable delay in the resident receiving a response to her concerns.
The landlord in its complaint response offered as redress to the resident the replacement of the fence to the right-hand side of the garden. The resident disputed that the offer could be considered as a resolution to her complaint as the landlord had offered the installation of the fence to the right-hand side of the garden as compensation to Neighbour A for her agreement to allow the scaffolding to be placed on her land. The landlord in its final complaint response, apologised for the error in its complaint response. It clarified that as a resolution to the complaint it would remove the hedge and install the fence to the left-hand side of the garden. This was an appropriate response as that landlord accepted that its previous response contained an error and it was necessary to clarify to the resident the redress it had offered in relation to her complaint.
The resident escalated her complaint on 23 April 2021. The landlord requested an extension on 18 May 2021. This was appropriate as it managed the resident’s expectations around when she could receive the landlord’s complaint response which was sent on 7 June 2021.
The landlord considered the resident’s request that as it had decided not to remove the hedge on the left-hand side of the boundary and install fencing, it should give her the cost of installing the fence as compensation for its failure to remedy the repairs required to her property. The landlord final complaint response addressed this point and gave reasons why it had not agreed to her request. When assessing compensation awards, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to assess the impact on the resident and for any compensation offers it makes to be proportionate to any service failures it identified. In this case, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the cost of the fencing was not the only factor for it to consider when assessing the award of compensation due to the resident.
The landlord in its review of the complaint made the resident an overall award of compensation of £150. However, in its review of the resident’s complaint, the landlord did not consider whether an award of compensation was appropriate for its delay in responding to the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of the repairs required to the property
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to be transferred
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord recognised that repairs were required to the roof to resolve the water penetration into the resident’s property. There was an unacceptable delay to the repairs being carried out.
The landlord assessed the resident’s entitlement to rehousing and awarded the appropriate rehousing priority in accordance with its lettings policy
The landlord did not respond to the initial complaint within a reasonable period of time and did not consider whether an award of compensation was appropriate.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident and apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord to pay the resident £300, in addition to the £150 identified in its complaint response, broken down as
1. The landlord to pay the resident £250 for the delays for completing the roof repairs to the resident’s property
2. The landlord to pay the resident £50 for its complaint handling failures.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

If it has not already done so, the landlord to pay the resident the £150 stated in its complaint response
If it has not already done so, the landlord to arrange with the resident a mutually convenient appointment to remove the hedge on the left-hand side of the garden and replace that area with a fence as outlined in its final complaint response.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within six weeks of the date of this report.